[2025:RJ-JP:11616] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 698/2006 Ram Khiladi S/o Moolchand, R/o Talab, Police Station Tahla, Distt. Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 12/03/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 03.07.2006 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.92/2003, whereby the judgment dated 25.08.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.263/2000, convicting the revisionist-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith fine, was upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was suspended by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 04.10.2006. Counsel makes only a limited prayer that [2025:RJ-JP:11616] (2 of 3) [CRLR-698/2006] without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused. 5. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1- 1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...” 6. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in year 2000 and this revision petition has been pending since year 2006. [2025:RJ-JP:11616] (3 of 3) [CRLR-698/2006] 7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws and the fact that the petitioner is facing trial from more than 25 years and also remained in judicial custody for a period of more than three months, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence(s) under Sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is not in judicial custody, thus, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /17